L'abus de pouvoir des représentants légaux dans le droit familial du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to determine the nature of the abuse of power of the legal representatives in Quebec family law, one must identify the different cases of legal representation and study the powers of the different representatives. Tutorship is the mechanism for the protection of the non emancipated minor. As a rule, the tutor represents his pupil in civil acts; but in some cases he has no power to act, in other cases he must get the judge's authorization, while in a third category of cases he must comply with special formalities. Consequently, there can be absence of power, misappropriation of power, bad utilization of power or dereliction of duty. Curatorship is used for different kinds of interdicted persons. The powers and liabilities of the curator to an interdicted person are generally the same as those of the tutor. The legal mandate of the married woman is the power to represent her husband for the current needs of the household and the maintenance of the children. In this case, the abuse mainly takes the form of an excess of power. The effects of the abuse of power must primarily be considered in the relations between the represented person and his legal representative; we must ask ourselves if the legal representative is liable for damages, if his acts can be annulled and if there can be withdrawal from office. There are also effects to be considered in the relationship between the legal representative and the third persons, as well as in the relationship between the represented person and the third parties.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".